Search Results

This paper presents the results of an analysis of 12 full-scale side impact crash tests that were conducted to compare the responses of the SAE BioSID with the NHTSA SID. Dummies were tested in the front and the rear seat with both a baseline (production) door interior and a 3-inch-thick Arcel 512™ foam pad. The responses of the two dummies were significantly different. Peak rib accelerations were higher for the BioSID in the front seat. In the rear seat, peak rib accelerations were lower for the BioSID. However, the values of the Thoracic Trauma Index from the two dummies were not significantly different when tested in the front seat. The addition of padding significantly reduced the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI), peak rib accelerations, and peak pelvis acceleration in both the front and rear seat for both dummies. For the BioSID, the addition of padding produced significantly greater rib compression and Viscous Criterion in the front seat, but not in the rear seat.

This paper presents the results of an analysis of 16 full-scale side impact crash tests that were conducted by the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association. The objective is to examine the influence of the major factors distinguishing the proposed U.S. and European passenger car side impact test procedures on the resulting injury measures. The factors addressed are the dummy, the moving deformable barrier, and the impact angle of the barrier. Each of the factors examined had substantial effects on the injury measures. For the front seat position, the design of the EEVC barrier face and the EUROSID rib structure combine to produce a Thoracic Trauma Index 80 percent higher than in the U.S. test. Conversely, the EEVC barrier face produces a resultant peak pelvic acceleration 131 g's (74 percent) lower than the U.S. test. These results underscore the importance of the differences in the proposed U.S. and European side impact tests and the obstacles to international harmonization.